"I want to be back and I want to be in full force" writes Hana Beshara.

Share this story

Hana Beshara, founder of the once-popular link site NinjaVideo, has never apologized for her role in helping thousands of users download copyrighted movies and television shows for free. At the peak of the site's popularity in 2010, she posted a defiant manifesto to her podcast blaming Hollywood's "inflated budgets" and "ridiculous salaries" for the prevalence of piracy. She agreed to plead guilty to copyright infringement in 2011, becoming one of the first people to go to prison as a result of the government's "Operation In Our Sites" enforcement program.

But Beshara continued making defiant posts online about the case. "I never snitched, I never left NinjaVideo, and I will always be proud of this incredible world we built," she wrote in early 2012. Prosecutors cited her lack of remorse in their arguments for giving her a longer sentence.

Now, after a little more than a year in prison, Beshara has been released. And her initial post on the NinjaVideo forums strikes a defiant tone.

"WORD, I AM OUT OF PRISON! Oh man, I'm smiling like a fool here on this computer," she wrote in a Friday post. "You cannot possibly imagine how good it feels to be online again. And just so everyone knows, the first url I typed into an address bar was ninjavideoforum.net.

"The worst is over. I want to be back and I want to be in full force," she continued. "I love this community and I need to be some kind of advocate for this whole free media movement. Talk to anyone you know that would like to help. I did my time and I did it honorably."

Beshara is currently living in a halfway house in Newark, NJ. She's required to find a job, after which she will serve a few months of home detention, followed by two years of supervised release.

According to TorrentFreak, Beshara spent her time in prison peeling potatoes for 12 cents per hour. She also took courses in business and jewelry-making.

Beshara owes more than $200,000 to major movie studios and is reportedly interested in appearing on reality TV to help pay off her debt. One of Beshara's close friends told TorrentFreak that Beshara "plans on petitioning the courts to allow her to pay back the film creators instead of the MPAA" but hasn't yet discussed that idea with her lawyer.

"But Beshara continued making defiant posts online about the case. "I never snitched, I never left NinjaVideo, and I will always be proud of this incredible world we built," she wrote in early 2012. Prosecutors cited her lack of remorse in their arguments for giving her a longer sentence."

A world of her own making based upon the stolen property of others? A definition of 'criminal enterprise'

One of Beshara's close friends told TorrentFreak that Beshara "plans on petitioning the courts to allow her to pay back the film creators instead of the MPAA" but hasn't yet discussed that idea with her lawyer.

One of Beshara's close friends told TorrentFreak that Beshara "plans on petitioning the courts to allow her to pay back the film creators instead of the MPAA" but hasn't yet discussed that idea with her lawyer.

If the fine is sticking, I'd really like for this to happen.

I was literally replying myself to quote that. I'd rather she pay her fine directly to those who she was accused of stealing from, not the Monopoly.

It's hard to have any sympathy for her since she made a lot of money from the site; she coppd to signing ad deals grossing over $500,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NinjaVideo). It wasn't just to cover the hosting fee either, she made money from the site.

That has nothing to do with free media for the masses, and everything to do with her finding a good revenue stream.

Let's not forget that she admitted to making $200,000 pirating those videos. She can pretend that she was being all Robin Hood, railing about how much money studio bigwigs make. But in the end, she just wanted a piece of that pie.

Beshara owes more than $200,000 to major movie studios and is reportedly interested in appearing on reality TV to help pay off her debt. One of Beshara's close friends told TorrentFreak that Beshara "plans on petitioning the courts to allow her to pay back the film creators instead of the MPAA" but hasn't yet discussed that idea with her lawyer.

Heaven forbid the MPAA should give even a nickel of the money they squeeze out of people to the content creators. How would they manage to stay in the massive lawsuit business if they didn't hold on to all the jackpot awards they keep winning?

She should just start an Open Source Media Movement where people can make movies for others to download and view as they please. Sort of like Open Source Software.

However, I think the reality is that unlike Open Source Software which can produce top quality software like operating systems such as Linux that can pretty much go toe-to-toe with commercial offerings like Windows, Open Source Media would be hard to produce movies with the same quality as commercial offerings from major studios.

There's a lot of space between the system the MPAA/RIAA currently perpetuates and the "free media" one espoused here. I'd be perfectly happy paying for DRM free media, but we don't get even that. The pirates currently offer the best product even when you completely remove price from the equation.

She should just start an Open Source Media Movement where people can make movies for others to download and view as they please. Sort of like Open Source Software.

However, I think the reality is that unlike Open Source Software which can produce top quality software like operating systems such as Linux that can pretty much go toe-to-toe with commercial offerings like Windows, Open Source Media would be hard to produce movies with the same quality as commercial offerings from major studios.

I suspect that starting out with animated shows and movies may get around the cost issue.

It is in part how anime got so big in Japan, because it took less resource to tell grand stories via drawings than via actual actors and sets.

I'm beginning to get the sense that many prominent 'activists' are more into these causes for their own egos than for any sincere belief in the cause. Narcissism and self-aggrandizement are what drive them rather than empathy or a desire to improve the world.

I'm beginning to get the sense that many prominent 'activists' are more into these causes for their own egos than for any sincere belief in the cause. Narcissism and self-aggrandizement are what drive them rather than empathy or a desire to improve the world.

She should just start an Open Source Media Movement where people can make movies for others to download and view as they please. Sort of like Open Source Software.

However, I think the reality is that unlike Open Source Software which can produce top quality software like operating systems such as Linux that can pretty much go toe-to-toe with commercial offerings like Windows, Open Source Media would be hard to produce movies with the same quality as commercial offerings from major studios.

"Free media" is fine, as long as you make media yourself and give it away for free! But taking media other people have made and insisting it should be "free" against their wish is just gross. I don't like how much money Bentley makes from their cars, and how their exploiting workers (no idea if that's true), but that doesn't mean I can steal their cars.

It's kind of weird that she wants to make money from a TV show when she also thinks that it should be given away for free.

Good call. I wonder how many producers would be the least bit interested in actually signing her up. Oh, you think we make too much money, so you've been giving away our products for free AND making money from it, and now you want me to hire you. I really would like to know what universe she lives in.

She should just start an Open Source Media Movement where people can make movies for others to download and view as they please. Sort of like Open Source Software.

However, I think the reality is that unlike Open Source Software which can produce top quality software like operating systems such as Linux that can pretty much go toe-to-toe with commercial offerings like Windows, Open Source Media would be hard to produce movies with the same quality as commercial offerings from major studios.

Perhaps that's true, but there's definitely a market for self-made/amateur video films and perhaps with a network of people involved with the field who have an outlet to share knowledge and resources, that quality could improve. One guy has a nice camera, another guy has high-end editing software and experience, you could collaborate with other writers on the script, build up a portfolio of amateur actors.

I'm beginning to get the sense that many prominent 'activists' are more into these causes for their own egos than for any sincere belief in the cause. Narcissism and self-aggrandizement are what drive them rather than empathy or a desire to improve the world.

There's some interesting psychology involved, to be sure. I think you're being a bit too harsh, but it is true that many activists support causes that they feel are morally good, but are driven largely by the psychological benefits (from feeling good about one's action to feeling morally superior to just being popular and well-liked). This crosses into straight-up attention-seeking for some, sure, but usually they still actually care about the cause. As a general rule, though, I venerate charity-workers and activists who do not seek attention or even shy from it far more than those who are in the limelight. I daresay there are dozens of people who work harder at good causes in any neighborhood than just about any activist you can name.

As an aside, did she actually call her thing a "manifesto"? I'm asking because I have reached the conclusion that anyone who publishes a manifesto is absolutely bonkers... at least that's what I'm going to publish in my "Proclamation of Irrefutable Principles."

She should just start an Open Source Media Movement where people can make movies for others to download and view as they please. Sort of like Open Source Software.

However, I think the reality is that unlike Open Source Software which can produce top quality software like operating systems such as Linux that can pretty much go toe-to-toe with commercial offerings like Windows, Open Source Media would be hard to produce movies with the same quality as commercial offerings from major studios.

i think she should call it YouTube.

That wouldn't be the same. A true Open Source Media analogy would allow others to modify your work. You Tube is the equivalent of publishing the executable, but not the source. For Open Source you'd need the script, the footage on the cutting room floor, the costumes and sets, any 3D models used in animation and special effects, etc. etc. Not to mention access to the original actors, who would be required to work for anyone interested in modifying the original. All in all, any Open Source Media would by necessity be limited to animation, as others have suggested.

That wouldn't be the same. A true Open Source Media analogy would allow others to modify your work. You Tube is the equivalent of publishing the executable, but not the source. For Open Source you'd need the script, the footage on the cutting room floor, the costumes and sets, any 3D models used in animation and special effects, etc. etc. Not to mention access to the original actors, who would be required to work for anyone interested in modifying the original. All in all, any Open Source Media would by necessity be limited to animation, as others have suggested.

You could do a bit more even without full source material, such as editing and dubbing; it wouldn't be truly "open source" of course. So someone could finally release a copy of Borne Identity that does not make people puke due to all the shaky cam. I'd be down for that, at least. XD

She should just start an Open Source Media Movement where people can make movies for others to download and view as they please. Sort of like Open Source Software.

However, I think the reality is that unlike Open Source Software which can produce top quality software like operating systems such as Linux that can pretty much go toe-to-toe with commercial offerings like Windows, Open Source Media would be hard to produce movies with the same quality as commercial offerings from major studios.

Perhaps that's true, but there's definitely a market for self-made/amateur video films and perhaps with a network of people involved with the field who have an outlet to share knowledge and resources, that quality could improve. One guy has a nice camera, another guy has high-end editing software and experience, you could collaborate with other writers on the script, build up a portfolio of amateur actors.

Wait, why talk about 'amateur' actors and crew? This isn't a divide between professionals and the rest of us, art and culture don't depend on money, the effective dissemination of art depends on money.

You don't need to make a new form of cinema or culture, you simply need change the method of distribution, of dissemination. Creative Commons licensing does this wonderfully and there is a thriving community being built up around it, it's not just a 'thing' for artists, it's being used in a lot of different ways.

The greatest example of a critically lauded, and genuinely wonderful, movie being distributed like this is 'Sita Sings The Blues'. You don't need to compromise culture to escape the big studios. This is an article I wrote on the viability of the finacial model, http://incompatiblethoughts.blogspot.co ... model.html . It's certainly not some kind of pipe-dream, it's a viable form of dissemination of art.

If you define piracy as using threats of harm to steal from others, then the MPAA and RIAA are pirates.

I've never seen piracy defined that way in any dictionary. You can't just make up your own definitions, no matter how despicable the MPAA and RIAA are.

What else do pirates do, other than drink rum and say "Arrrr"? Seriously, they threaten harm unless you give them your stuff. Simple definition.

Lots of people drink rum and say "arr". That's not enough to define "pirate." "Threaten harm unless the threatened party gives the threaten-er his/her stuff" is the definition of "mugger". Depending on qualifiying information it could also be "extortionist", "blackmailer", or just "common thug." "Piracy", by definition requires specific types of action under specific circumstances (for instance, if done on land, it can't be piracy--there's a whole different classification for that). Originally your only options for crime were land and sea. Piracy applied to sea. When humans learned to fly, we added "air". Now, the term has been expanded again to cover some crimes committed entirely in virtual space. Also, it doesn't require threat of harm at all. Piracy can technically be done without the knowledge of the original owners of the stuff. Threat of harm is a pretty effective way to pirate for sure, but it's not necessary.

In none of these cases can I think of behavior from the MPAA/RIAA that qualifies as piracy. Legally, they own the content they are suing over. They are within their rights there. Now they definitely abuse their rights and political influence and they get way more money than they should be entitled to, but that's all much trickier to define and certainly isn't piracy, since it's all done from within the legal system rather than outside of it.

That wouldn't be the same. A true Open Source Media analogy would allow others to modify your work. You Tube is the equivalent of publishing the executable, but not the source. For Open Source you'd need the script, the footage on the cutting room floor, the costumes and sets, any 3D models used in animation and special effects, etc. etc. Not to mention access to the original actors, who would be required to work for anyone interested in modifying the original. All in all, any Open Source Media would by necessity be limited to animation, as others have suggested.

There is a direct comparision, to Creative Commons licenses. The source-code isn't the raw film, but the ability to remix and modify works, that's what culture is built on just as coding is built on reading and improving source-code.

The raw footage, etc. don't really matter in this case, it's not the same thing as source code for software. The key element, crucial to culture in the same way as code is to software, is being able take a work, modify it, use elements of it in other works, to remix it, etc.

Culture thrives on re-interpreation and remixing. YouTube isn't enough, there needs to be freedom to reinterpret and remix. Once you're putting it out in the public, it serves a massive use if it becomes part of our shared culture.

If you define piracy as using threats of harm to steal from others, then the MPAA and RIAA are pirates.

I've never seen piracy defined that way in any dictionary. You can't just make up your own definitions, no matter how despicable the MPAA and RIAA are.

What else do pirates do, other than drink rum and say "Arrrr"? Seriously, they threaten harm unless you give them your stuff. Simple definition.

Except that It IS their stuff. They aren't taking your stuff. You're taking their stuff.

No, it's not their stuff. It's the stuff of the various producers, writers, singers, etc. The RIAA and MPAA produce nothing; nothing is theirs, yet they keep all the proceeds of any legal action they take. They are pirates, and the creators are their victims.